European politics

NATO and the EU

A rowless summit

IN BUCHAREST in 2008 they fell out over whether to allow Ukraine and Georgia to begin the formal membership process to join NATO. In Strasbourg-Kehl in 2009, they barely patched up the row over the appointment of Anders Fogh Rasmussen as the alliance's secretary-general, in the face of objections of Turkey. This year Lisbon, the NATO allies seemed to agree on everything. Bad for journalists, but perhaps better for transatlantic relations.

First off, NATO agreed its new “strategic concept” on November 19th. This is intended to be the underlying philosophy of the alliance for the coming years. In the prolonged dispute over whether to concentrate on territorial defence of NATO countries, or on expeditionary missions in Afghanistan, NATO said the allies had to be able to fight both kinds of campaigns and more, not least cyberwarfare. The simmering row over Germany's call to remove nuclear weapons from European soil was overcome with a compromise that NATO would strive for a world free of nuclear weapons, but until then it had to remain a nuclear-armed alliance.

Then came the debate over Afghanistan but this was, similarly, largely consensual. The “transition” from NATO forces to Afghan security control will pick up pace from next year, district by district, province by province. There is little real novelty here. Transition has been much talked about for a year or more, and the Afghan capital, Kabul, is already under nominal security control of the Afghan government.

The aim of completing the transition by 2014 is distant. To the Americans, this is an objective to be aspired to, and will depend on conditions on the ground. Regardless of conditions, though, Britain's prime minister, David Cameron, restated his view that British combat operations would be over by 2015 at the latest. “I think the British public deserve a deadline,” he declared.

In a sense, Mr Cameron has copied Canada, which announced some years ago that its combat troops would be out by next year. Yet Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, has now made a commitment to provide 950 soldiers to train Afghan forces “behind the wire” in their barracks. Other countries have also stepped up their training contribution.

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who had complained in a newspaper interview about night-raids by special forces, saying they were aggravating the insurgency, declined the opportunity to make a fuss about the issue in public. “You are pulling my legs,” he told one journalist who asked him about his criticism of NATO tactics. Mr Obama acknowledged that Mr Karzai had been right to express concern about civilian casualties, but accepted that there would be disagreements in future.

In private, though, the dialogue was sterner. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France were among those who told the Afghan leader that he needed a more “coherent” message; he should not sound as if he disapproved of the presence of foreign forces. Western leaders also had domestic opinion to worry about, they told him.

Would Russia's president Dmitry Medvedev, absent last year because of the row over the Georgia war, provide some fireworks for the weary hacks? No such luck. The Russian and western leaders alike spoke of turning a new page in relations. Mr Medvedev thought the occasion “historic”, though quite why was unclear.

He agreed to keep talking to NATO about the missile defence it agreed to create by linking up American ship-based systems with some shorter-range European air-defence rockets under development. But talking was not agreeing, he made clear. If Russia did not feel it was being treated as an equal, he warned, he would not co-operate and the two sides risked returning to an arms race.

It was the question of nuclear weapons, more specifically the new arms-reduction treaty between America and Russia, that provided a bit of passion. Mr Obama urged Republican leaders in the Senate to ratify the treaty, or risk the reversal of the “reset” policy that had eased tensions and convinced Russia to support fresh sanctions against Iran. Several eastern European leaders dutifully emerged to say they supported ratification of the treaty. Mr Medvedev said failure to ratify would make things "very unpleasant". Mr Obama even quoted Ronald Reagan and his dictum of “trust but verify”. Without the treaty, said Mr Obama, America would have no means of verifying Russian nukes.

As the convention centre was packed up, Mr Obama had one final summit: with the two “presidents” of the European Union, Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, the EU's civil service, and Herman Van Rompuy, who represents EU leaders. Mr Obama had declined the offer to hold the summit earlier this year in Spain; now he agreed to a meeting tacked on at the end of the main event.

This was an even more dull affair than the NATO gathering. The leaders promised to work harder to promote jobs and growth. They agreed, among other things, to work to remove non-tariff barriers to transatlantic trade, to draw up common standards for future electric vehicles and to set up a working group on cyber-security.

Was it a waste of time? Mr Obama put it thus: “This summit was not as exciting as other summits because we basically agreed on everything.” What about the trade row between Boeing and Airbus? Or the dispute between Europe and America over currencies? Such was the violent agreement that the leaders refused to take questions.

Europe does not need to kow-tow to Islamists - the mortal enemies of the Civilized World. Nato, after the implosion of Soviet Russia is a useless and expensive project. It should be replaced with the European Union Armed Forces.

No Turkey in this deal. Under the current government it plays the part of the notorious enemy within rather than the sincere friend and honest ally. In fact, Turkey is definitely veering towards Islamic extremism.

No other country should belong to the European Union Armed Forces that is not a member of the EU. United States and Canada could have a trilateral agreement that would give European nations the full protection of the American military power.

As suggested in the comment posted by "Krall", Israel could become an associated member, since it is the only European country in the entire Middle East and Africa, therefore a natural ally in the forthcoming War of Civilizations. It will act as a 'flat top' in and for the entire region, when the time comes.

As far as Afghanistan and Iraq are concerned, the sooner we get out the better for all concerned. We will NEVER change the 7th Century mentality that afflicts ALL people in that region. That is the sad reality that not even Muhammad, should he come back, could ever change.

ne,ne! my tongue got it right ! if you see Russians as absolute "Pigs" and monsters, we don't, from our perspective, which isn't of a domestic agenda policy like you seem to refer for your own perception of the deal.
Georgia never was under our sphere of influence, at least, she was rather of Turkey's !

"These countries, which were accepted by all NATO members to join (I know, France would certainly refrain from but they're in, alas ...)"

it was Germany first who put some more barriers, I believe already in October 2007 at one Nato convention, (endorsed by us, like usual, when Germany decides sumthin that isn't ment against our direct interests) Anyway, we weren't in position to tell Nato who should be in, and who should be out... until 2009, when we re-integrated Nato burocracy and direction !

"(again, I recollect Mr. Chirac had once expressed a different view on it)."

Chirac told the Poles "they missed the opportunity to shut the F.up" when they affirmed to the Bush's gang that they saw french arms in Irak. The Poles had to apology ! Though, like you, I guess, they were eagering to please this (supposed) powerful american Patron, that was looking for foreign legionnaires for their war campains, (where half of the american troops are private contractors), so that they kept a appearence of legal and military campains ! Anyway, this isn't the topic, but if you want to trap me on the subject, then, know that I have been studying it for a while since until Sarkozy was elected we were "America 's true enemis" for quite a number of americans, not the Saudis... not AQ... but the freedom friers surrender monkeys !

"You are certainly a mother or an aunt, you would not like your children or cousins being corrected in this way by a drunkard living next door, would you?"

hmm I'm probably going to become a mother in law for a Ukrainian girl ;-)

I understand that Russia still had the old reflexes, but I think Bush'policy pushed Putin into the ring corner, he's been betrayed by those that said they could see until his soul through his eyes. They had promised that Nato will not extend further, the missiles shields were a direct provocation, it's like Cuba's Kroutchev missiles were still in Cuba. Also didn't see that the US really had the envy to support these former soviet republics, see how Bush was silent in August 2008, how they would leave Poland, Ukraine... at direct grips with Russia, like in 1956, for the Suez crisis, for Algeria war, the US didn't want that these conflicts became "cold war" conflicts with the major player supporting Egypt and Algeria, Russia !

Like some of you in these countries must find a way to make discussions possible with Russia, Russia has acknowledged in 2008 that she can't bully countries whenever she feel like it, she has more to lose as economical means, and China will eat her if she doesn't become "civilised with the rest of Europe. This is a common interest that the caucasian populations stand together !

article 5, if you really were a Nato member, not a candidate !

"Please, think a little before you write. Otherwise, I would wish that such a coercitive action with the use of the Russian-owned French "fleuron de la Navale" happens once in Brest. Who knows? And listen to that"

hmm, you're not different from Russia, you don't make diplomatic discussions, but threats of punition too !

and I'm sorry to tell you that our soccer players (Marseille) gave the "pâtée" to the russian soccer players lately.

is it right that Saakashvili is initiating military youth trainings in schools, like Putin youth parades, and or from another time H youth... ?

The NATO can do whatever and however they like but Germany should defintively withdraw and I am sure if we have next time a Green government we will abolish our armed forces and withdraw from NATO.
Germany never had anything to do in such an organisation.
The NATO is an organisation which is completely ruledv and run by the British and Americans.
Germany never had and never will have any strategic interests
outside of its own soil so the NATO is thed most useless organisation I can imagine.
I think the British, French and Americans can engage worldwide because they have the finincial and human ressources.

The NATO can do whatever and however they like but Germany should defintively withdraw and I am sure if we have next time a Green government we will abolish our armed forces and withdraw from NATO.
Germany never had anything to do in such an organisation.
The NATO is an organisation which is completely ruledv and run by the British and Americans.
Germany never had and never will have any strategic interests
outside of its own soil so the NATO is thed most useless organisation I can imagine.
I think the British, French and Americans can engage worldwide because they have the finincial and human ressources.

I believe your tongue has slipped a little by telling this nicely turned phrase about the rights of Russia to take coercitive actions against its neighbours. Could you be so kind to explain what are, in your understanding, physical and geographical limits to such an action.
These countries, which were accepted by all NATO members to join (I know, France would certainly refrain from but they're in, alas ...) are not turbulent children to which a mighty neighbor can spank their little tender "derrieres" (again, I recollect Mr. Chirac had once expressed a different view on it). You are certainly a mother or an aunt, you would not like your children or cousins being corrected in this way by a drunkard living next door, would you?

Finally, the trouble stems from the meaning of my last sentence. You probably think these people merit what happens with them and you do not feel at any rate "solidaire" with them. And solidarity is exactly the meaning of the Article 5, I guess.

Please, think a little before you write. Otherwise, I would wish that such a coercitive action with the use of the Russian-owned French "fleuron de la Navale" happens once in Brest. Who knows? And listen to that:

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

(...)

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.